masseffectfandomcom-20200222-history
User talk:176.31.226.184
As a courtesy I'm letting you know that I've opened a "talk page" item on Priority: Rannoch about the "Destroyer" issue; feel free to weigh in. Meanwhile I'll note that it isn't necessary to go all insulting (e.g. "your stupid edits"), or calling the person who asked about Mordin's assistant an idiot, just because there's a simple disagreement. Disagreement became clear, it now moves to the talk page, we build/await community consensus, no big deal. Cattlesquat (talk) 16:06, May 6, 2013 (UTC) Warning Please refrain from insulting other users, or you will face a ban. Thank you for your future cooperation. Trandra (talk) 21:09, May 6, 2013 (UTC) Haha, my old buddy is back! Genuine thanks for fixing up my "sloppy and incomplete cleanup". :) I only had my iPad and so just fixed the basics, spelling and grammar. Cattlesquat (talk) 15:00, May 25, 2013 (UTC) Aleena = Aria ? Hi , as you should have seen, the debate over the Aleena = Aria trivia is very close to what we can describe as an edit warring. To avoid that, a brought the issue on the talk page. Try to remain on this talk page rather than editing please. Thank for understanding. --DeldiRe 12:22, May 30, 2013 (UTC) Behavior Please try to be more polite with others users and stop your edits wars, in general. When it comes to the N7 HQ article, you can see on others articles (you did such a comparison during the dispute with Elseweyr) that the See Also section is only a reminder of linked articles which can give you more information about the topics of the current article. It is then redundant but no irrelevant. If you do not agree, start a vote on this. --DeldiRe 14:16, July 9, 2013 (UTC) :You are in no position to tell me what to do since even admins are constantly adjusting your VERY CLUMSY attempts at article organization despite the amount of time you spend here. If they decide to choose YOUR version instead of mine, which I consciously try to model after what I see are established formatting procedures here, fine I'll step aside if I see the logic in that. Until then, don't even dare to give me that crap about "voting" when it has been proven and demonstrated you and certain other users poorly understand basic site procedure. :To quote from Lancer1289: Things that are to be taken to the talk pages are things like trivia disputes, major article changes, and things of the like. What is not is simple basic edits that do nothing but change the wording to mean the same thing. That is usually handled by a user talk page discussion, if it is even necessary. :A seven day discussion is also only to be used in those cases, not for what you think it is. There are still come clear gaps in your understanding of site policies. :As far as I know this wiki's Bureaucrat has not weighed in on that matter, so unless he intervenes I will continue to operate under Lancer's assumption and reject anything else you think is site procedure. :Deleting the "See Also" section is a simple basic edit to me and it is also a common sense one. This is debatable, I know, but I will not waste talkpage space over this and just contact an admin to settle the matter. It is not worth the time discussing this with people of unreliable repute so I'll skip the tedious talkpage "debate" if you don't mind. 14:46, July 9, 2013 (UTC) ::Yeah do that, continue to follow Lancer's example, you are doing it great. --DeldiRe 16:40, July 9, 2013 (UTC) :Deldi since you had recently added that social.bioware.com link, and anon's challenging them (reverted them out), it's actually on you to either resolve it with him e.g. here or else take it to the talk page yourself, since any time you add something new of substance to an article you're effectively suggesting new content. Now mind you he's also reverted out links that Commdor added, and you may have higher standing to defend/support those edits but that gets into a fuzzy area that I'm not really sure where the "edit war line" is etc. Which is why it's always safest IMHO to start whatever talk page discussion is needed yourself if there's a disagreement and not expect folks challenging your edits to start them. Cattlesquat (talk) 17:20, July 9, 2013 (UTC) ::(Footnote - none of which means I agree with any of anon's statements on policy etc) Cattlesquat (talk) 17:23, July 9, 2013 (UTC) ::Cattle, it is what I did by posting on anon's talk page. And did not bother to discuss. He seems that he prefer throw insults in my face about my "reputation" which made me laugh. And as you can see, he had the same behavior with you several months ago and with Elsweyr today. It is sad, because his arguments could be valid (not those about site policy indeed). As I said on an other page, I'm not against his removal but it seems quite odd so I prefer to have a discussion on this. A discussion which is (at least it seems so) impossible with a fan of Lancer. --DeldiRe 18:07, July 9, 2013 (UTC)